Los Angeles County’s parks could use a reliable and responsible funding plan. Assessments approved by voters in 1992 and 1996 that have generated $80 million in combined annual revenue for the Regional Park and Open Space District could use replacing, as the first has expired and the second will follow in 2019.

Measure A is Los Angeles County’s second pitch to voters for ongoing parks funding, calling for a 1.5 cent per square foot parcel tax raising $94.5 million a year. The measure is an improvement on the leading proposals the Board of Supervisors considered — including a 3- and 5-cent tax which would have raised double or triple the amount of funding, but there are several factors that cause us concern.

In 2014, voters rejected Measure P, a $23 parcel tax to be levied on all properties for 30 years. Partyly, this was because Measure P was crafted largely behind the scenes with little public outreach and even less certainty the money would be used approached.

While Measure A benefited from improved public outreach, it’s predicated on a parcel tax that not only isn’t uniform and fair across the board, but also doesn’t have an end date. It’s a permanent tax which removes the accountability that comes with a sunset date in which property owners can assess if they truly got their money’s worth.

According to an evaluation by the California Taxpayers Foundation, the tax will have disparate impacts on business owners and low-income communities. As it isn’t a flat, uniform tax, business and other non-homeowner property owners will end up shouldering most of the burden.

Higher-income communities like Malibu and Rancho Palos Verdes will pay a lower share than lower-income communities like Compton and Pomona. There are no assurances in the measure that such contributions will translate to more funding for parks in communities that pay more.

Mary Creasman, California director of government affairs for the Trust for Public Land, told us the measure might not fully solve the county’s parks funding problem, but “without this it’s going to get worse.”

While we share that concern, we believe if voters reject this measure, there is time to get things right and develop a strategy that will not only restore and invest in parks it already has but more equitably address the lack of park space in local communities.

The editorial board and opinion section staff are independent of the news-gathering side of our organization. Through our staff-written editorials, we take positions on important issues affecting our readership, from pension reform to protecting our region’s unique natural resources to transportation. The editorials are unsigned because, while written by one or more members of our staff, they represent the point of view of our news organization’s management. In order to take informed positions, we meet frequently with government, community and business leaders on important issues affecting our cities, region and state. During elections, we meet with candidates for office and the proponents and opponents of ballot initiatives and then make recommendations to voters.